Home›Uncategorized›Papa Francisco?32-POPE FRANCIS AND THE PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR THE FAMILY (PRESIDENT: ARCHBISHOP VINCENZO PAGLIA) UNVEIL DIABOLICAL SEX-ED PROGRAMME AT THE XXXI WORLD YOUTH DAY IN KRAKOW, POLAND

Papa Francisco?32-POPE FRANCIS AND THE PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR THE FAMILY (PRESIDENT: ARCHBISHOP VINCENZO PAGLIA) UNVEIL DIABOLICAL SEX-ED PROGRAMME AT THE XXXI WORLD YOUTH DAY IN KRAKOW, POLAND

“More souls go to hell because of sins of the flesh than for any other reason,” Our Lady of Fatima warned the three young seers in 1917. But this message, unfortunately, is entirely absent from the Vatican’s newly released sex-ed program for teens. Instead, sexual sins are not mentioned at all. The 6th and 9th commandments are ignored while sexually explicit images and immoral videos are used as springboards for discussion.

While the program has been in the process of development by married couples in Spain for a number of years, it appears to have received impetus to be completed by Pope Francis’ April Exhortation on marriage and the family, Amoris Laetitia.

In the exhortation, thePope speaks about the “need for sex education” to be addressed by “educational institutions,” a move that alarmed global life-and-family leaders since the Catholic Church has always recognized and taught — often in the face of opposition from world powers — that sex education is the “basic right and duty of parents.”

The Vatican’s sex-ed is broken down into six units that are to be taught over a period of four years (grades 9-12) to male and female students in mixed classes.

View all the lessons and teacher guides at theprogram’s website here*.

*http://www.educazioneaffettiva.org/?lang=en

The new program being put forward by the Pontifical Council for the Family appears to be a departure from what the Church’s magisterium has long taught on sex education. For example:

Pope Pius XI, in his 1929 encyclical on Christian education, Divini Illius Magistri*, speaks about sex instruction in a private setting by parents, not in classrooms, stating that if “some private instruction is found necessary and opportune, from those who hold from God the commission to teach and have the grace of state, every precaution must be taken. Such precautions are well known in traditional Christian education. … Hence it is of the highest importance that a good father, while discussing with his son a matter so delicate, should be well on his guard not to descend to details.” He adds: “Speaking generally, during the period of childhood, it suffices to employ those remedies which produce the double effect of opening the door to the virtue of purity and closing the door upon vice.” *See list at the end of present file

Pope Pius XII, in his 1951address to fathers of families*, warns against propaganda, even from “Catholic sources,” which “exaggerates out of all proportion the importance and significance of the sexual element. … Their manner of explaining sexual life is such that it acquires in the mind and conscience of the average reader the idea and value of an end in itself, making him lose sight of the true primordial purpose of matrimony, which is the procreation and upbringing of children, and the grave duty of married couples as regards this purpose—something which the literature of which We are speaking leaves too much in the background.” *See list at the end of the present file

Pope St. John Paul II, in his 1981 apostolic exhortationFamiliaris Consortio*,calls sex education a “basic right and duty of parents” which “must always be carried out under their attentive guidance, whether at home or in educational centers chosen and controlled by them.” He adds: “Christian parents, discerning the signs of God’s Will, will devote special attention and care to educate in virginity or celibacy as the supreme form of that self-giving that constitutes the very meaning of human sexuality.” *See list at the end of the present file

The Sacred Congregation for Catholic Education, in its 1983 Educational Guidelines in Human Love*, writes that the “fact remains ever valid that in regard to the more intimate aspects [of sexual education], whether biological or affective, an individual education should be bestowed, preferably within the sphere of the family.” *See list at the end of present file

While the new Vatican program has many positive qualities, its defects cannot be underestimated.

These include:

Handing the sexual formation of children over to educators while leaving parents out of the equation.

Failing to name and condemn sexual behaviors, such as fornication, prostitution, adultery, contracepted-sex, homosexual activity, and masturbation, as objectively sinful actions that destroy charity in the heart and turn one away from God.

Failing to warn youths about the possibility of eternal separation from God (damnation) for committing grave sexual sins. Hell is not mentioned once.

Failing to distinguish between mortal and venial sin.

Failing to speak about the 6th and 9th commandment, or any other commandment.

Failing to teach about the sacrament of confession as a way of restoring relationship with God after committing grave sin.

Not mentioning a healthy sense of shame when it comes to the body and sexuality.

Using gay icon Elton John(while not mentioning his activism) as an example of a gifted and famous person. http://educazioneaffettiva.wpglauco01.glauco.it/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Meeting_Lesson4.3_Educator.pdf

Endorsing the “dating” paradigm as a step towards marriage.

Not stressing celibacy as the supreme form of self-giving that constitutes the very meaning of human sexuality.

Failing to mention Christ’s teaching on marriage.

Treating sexuality as a separate subject instead of as something integrated into the doctrinal and moral teachings of the Church.

Positive qualities include:

Drawing from Saint John Paul II’s teachings in Theology of the Body and Love and Responsibility for an understanding of personhood, the language of the body, the spousal dimension of the body, and the body/soul unity of the person.

Teaching that the human person is either male or female. No gender theory here.

Teaching that men and women complement each other through sexual difference.

Teaching that men and woman are equal in dignity, but are different physically and emotionally. No radical feminism here.

Teaching about modesty and chastity as virtues, but not until later units. Chastity is defined as the “light which guides us to give an inviolate love.”

Teaching the importance of freedom in the moral life. Freedom is defined as the “capacity to do what is good.”

Speaking about “concupiscence” as a “darkness prevent[ing] us from seeing the fullness of the person in a proper and complete way.”

Briefly mentioning how love can be separated from procreation, but not explaining the specific evil.

Teaching about the importance of “self-control” and “self-mastery” in order to truly give yourself to another person.

Speaking about “misplaced love” which manifests itself as “narcissism” and “masturbation,” but no mention of sin.

Speaking about purity as the “virtue that disposes us to treat our body with ‘holiness and honor.'”

Briefly mentioning the “sanctity of life.”

Speaking about virginity as a way to “respond to the call to love.”

Promoting chastity before marriage.

Of urgent concern with the program is the number of films recommended by the program as a springboard for discussion that cannot be construed as anything but sexually immoral. For example:

Unit 4 recommends the 2013 R-rated film “To the Wonder”to discuss the “call to the donation of oneself.” Focus on the Family describes the sexual content in this way [WARNING–EXPLICIT]: “So while love is the primary focus of To the Wonder, sex becomes an integral part of its expression. Both Neil and Jane, and Neil and Marina, engage in explicitly rendered intercourse. Nudity stops just short of full; motions and sounds are passionate, erotic, titillating and extended—the blending of bodies to suggest complete intimacy. There’s the visual suggestion that Neil and Marina have sex in the coach compartment on a train. An (almost) oral sex scene is used to express distance and dissatisfaction.”

Unit 6 recommends the 2010 R-rated film “Love & other Drugs”to “reflect [] on the part of the formula with which a man and a woman express their mutual consent to contract marriage.” Focus on the Family describes the sexual content in this way [WARNING–EXPLICIT]: “For a good chunk of the film, Jamie and Maggie seem to be in a constant state of lovemaking. They smash into cabinets, writhe on the floor, pant and moan, engage in oral sex and loudly express their orgasmic responses. Audiences see both of them completely naked. (Only their pubic regions escape the frame.) It’s pretty explicit stuff…Later, after Maggie and Jamie tape one of their sexual escapades, Josh finds it and watches it. It’s implied that he masturbates while doing so. And he spends the rest of the film making crude comments about his brother’s anatomy.”

Unit 2 recommends the 2013 film “Stockholm”to raise the question, “Is it really worth it to give myself to the first person that approaches me?” Hollywood Reporter describes the film as a “cat-and-mouse” game where the man “expertly dresses up his desire for sex with her as real feeling” while “quizzes him about his real motives for his interest in her.” After the “commitment of sex has happened,” which appears to be graphically depicted based on previews, the couple starts to find out “who they really are and that they’re seeking entirely different things.”

The film selection reveals a startling lack of moral compass in the program creators, something that should alarm any parent thinking of allowing their child to be formed by this program.

One pro-family campaigner against Planned Parenthood’s explicit version of sex-ed gave this comment, under condition of anonymity, about the Vatican’s sex-ed program: “I had a hard time deciding if the authors were trying to cleverly disguise a bad program or if they were just thoroughly incompetent. They tried to interweave modern day movies to support the vague concepts they were trying to get across, but, how they did that was not very effective. Why the erotic pictures that bordered on porn? I thought the whole thing would be confusing to youth and frankly a large waste of time.”

http://educazioneaffettiva.wpglauco01.glauco.it/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Meeting_Lesson2.2_Young.pdf.In oneactivityyouths are asked to look at a picture of an older couple who are sitting in front of an image of a “young man and woman, joining their half-naked bodies in a hug.” They are asked: “Which of the two couples is having a sexual relationship?” The teaching guide states: “The objective is for the young person to feel ‘provoked’ in front of these two images, or even confused by the title of the topic and the image presented.” And that is the essential problem with this program: Young people will simply be confused by the conflicting messages, the explicit images and films, and the lack of moral directives.

In the end, the Vatican’s sex-ed program might at best be described as a mixed bag and at worst as a misguided effort that falls very much short of the mark.

While the casual reader can point to various texts that suggest that the program is aimed at promoting modesty, abstinence, and saving sexual relations for marriage, there is nevertheless something quite disturbing happening between the lines.

Because of the program’s failure to honor the God-given role of parents as primary educator, its utter failure to name and condemn various sexual sins, and its use of sexual explicit materials and films, the program not only fails to achieve its goal, but it could arguably have the opposite effect of awakening in youths disordered sexual desire and giving them the impetus to act out sexual fantasies. The program attempts to instruct young people about the importance of modesty, chastity, and intimacy and does so by violating the very values it is trying to instill. In this way it is self-defeating. In short, the program could lead youths not closer to God, but further away from him.

One might go as far as conjecturing that had the sainted Maria Goretti been formed by the Vatican’s sex-ed program, it is unlikely that she would have had any heroic words of virtue to say to her sexual attacker. She would not have been formed to say: “No! It is a sin! God does not want it!” She would not have learned that what her attacker wanted was an offense against God. Nor would have Saint Dominic Savio, in the same vein, been able to say: “Death rather than sin,” because he would not have learned about the horror of sin. A program in sexual morality that fails to teach young people to live the Gospel without compromise is unworthy of being taught.

Pete Baklinski has a B.A. in Liberal Arts and a Masters in Theology with a Specialization on Marriage and the Family (STM). He is married to Erin. Together they have six children.

21 of 121 responses

1. Francis has brought copies of Amoris Laetitia along with him to officially present. He will finally have a public failure despite the adoring crowds of youth. On the plane to Poland he told reporters the war is not a religious war, the Pope defending Islam. He sounds just like Obama in downplaying it all. Jorge Bergoglio is totally inadequate as Pope to confront what is really happening in the world today. In fact, he is part of the spreading of the evil.

2. Fr. RP: This is the logical outcome of the current liberal progressive trend that is in vogue at the Vatican. It is trash, and unworthy of Christian Dignity. Therefore, it is to be promoted at World Youth Day and with vigor not doubt.

3. It is purely diabolical!The diabolical has seduced this weak man, who wants to please everyone except His Master.

4. This “soft porn” type of literature issued to teens is an outrage considering all of the sexual misconduct/law suits the church is now involved in. Haven’t we learnedyet? I live in the New York vicinity – do you know that approximately 70 (that’s seventy) Catholic churches/schools have been shut down just in the New York City region alone. Why? Because of the mistrust brought on by sexual misconduct by priests and the legal payouts because of it. And after all of this, the church is issuing basically soft porn pictures to teens?

He should be asked “why would God make people gay, and then condemn homosexuality over and over in scripture to the point of destroying an entire city because of it”? Because He didn’t. There is absolutely nothing – and I mean nothing, in scripture giving any o.k. to homosexuality. It states in the New Testament that practicing homosexuals will not enter into heaven. Homosexuality is both psychologically and spiritually based, and is due to brokenness – brought on by a child’s relationships with his parents/siblings/others. Distortions took place and are taking place. Childhood sexual abuse is a huge factor. Two of the most famous gay women in America (Ellen and Rosie O’Donnell have both publicly admitted that they were molested as children.) Stop the lies, stop the confusion, stop the distortions, and stop leading confused souls to hell!

This pope needs our prayers and fasting. He also needs to be sternly spoken to by his conservative peers about things that he has said in the past, the confusion hehas caused, and his swaying away from church teachings. St. Paul reprimanded St. Peter on Peter’s ideology. And St. Peter was smart – he took his advice. I believe that everything is possible with God, and I believe this pope can change andcompletely and totally follow Christ. It is not out of God’s power to change thisman. I believe that. Let’s all pray and fast for him.

5. The age-old rhetorical question as a metaphor of stating an obvious fact “Is the pope Catholic” can no longer be considered rhetorical.I have serious doubts of this pope’s ‘catholicity’. In fact, I’ll go even further and say that I have strong suspicions that this pope is truly not authentically catholic. A first in the church perhaps? Well, history has shown that elevating a non-Catholic pope has had precedence. It appears we have yet another instance of that happening.

6. The number of people coming to that realization seems to be growing each week, and I have joined their ranks. To hold otherwise is untenable. I am not a canon lawyer. I am a Catholic, and know my Faith well enough to spot a fraud. I don’t need a council to tell me; my conscience is formed by Faith.

7.LifeSiteNews: For a much more in depth and also doctrinally authentic analysis of all the controversial remarks and actions of Pope Francis go to Denzinger Bergoglio athttps://en.denzingerbergoglio.com/. There is a wealth of top quality information and analysis on this website run by several highly competent Catholic priests. –Steve Jalsevac

8. This program and its content – make the devil very happy (yes, we should realize the people who put it together don’t even believe in the devil anymore).

9. I’ve checked out “The Meeting Point: Course of Affective Sexual Education for Young People” directly, viewing most of the PDFs. Muck and filth everywhere – like a PIGSTY.

When I read Chapter Seven of A.L. for the first time I was appalled – and this Vatican ‘sex-ed program’ confirms my worst fears. In conclusion, how dare the Pope call the world ‘an immense pile of filth’ when this program betrays his own house for what it is – a filthy pig pen.

10. Dear LifeSite News,

Thank you bringing this to everyone’s attention. I am grieved. The world must see the corruption coming from the Vatican, at the beset of Pope Francis.

Cardinals, please do more than write good books! Pray and collect yourselves and seek to resolve the problem that sits in the Chair of Peter!Our children are at the mercy of the seduction of the diabolical.

10. It’s a mistake to include the “positive qualities” of this sex ed programme in this article since even one of the negative qualities you’ve listed makes it a corrupting influence and unusable for anyone who knows that they must preserve their child’s innocence. I cannot now forward this to any of my lukewarm Catholic friends, because they will simply say “see! – it’s not so bad!”

11. The fact that the reader has to be warned of “explicit content” before opening a Vatican document/website is utterly astounding!

12. I’d would just like to ask why THE VATICAN needs to produce a sex ed program at all, and to show it or preview it at World Youth Day is a betrayal of the Catholic people!

13. This Pope has got to be the worst of all time. Saying same sex marriage is ok and that gays and lesbians are OK, and that we should distribute our wealth, etc. He does not speak for me and he is a disgrace to the Catholic Church.

14. “Who is going to save our church? Do not look to the priests. Do not look to the bishops. It’s up to you, the laity, to remind our priests to be priests and our bishops to be bishops.” —Archbishop Fulton Sheen

15. I am not Catholic, but rather an evangelical Christian, however I have always respected the Catholic Church for its stance on purity, holiness of the body and sexual relationships as in accord with the Scripture. To say that I am dismayed and greatly disappointed with such a program the Vatican has put out, is an understatement of huge proportions! In my opinion, there is NO redemptive quality in this program that could possibly override the absolute evil that is perpetrated on young minds and hearts with this filth! The master deceiver, Satan himself, did just this kind of thing to Eve….mixing a little truth with a LOT of error/deception. May God have mercy on the lost generation who will be exposed to this kind of impurity which will take away any innocence left in them, and incite sexual feelings and actions out of the context of righteousness and holiness. You are right that sin is not mentioned, because the church at large has done away with that concept. Sin is a “mistake” and has no real consequences now or in eternity, is the message this kind of stuff is purveying. What young people this day and age have the doctrinal, emotional and spiritual discernment to be able to sift the bad from the good in this program?? This is a real disaster, and I am exceedingly sad to see the Catholic leaders handling sex and sexuality in this context of outright sin.

16. I find it hard to be charitable with regard to a Vatican running amok and the Church without a TRUE vicar on earth. Jorge Bergoglio needs to retire his mitre and go back to Argentina where socialist secularism is apparently welcomed with open arms. We need a Cardinal Sarah or Burke in the papacy!

17. Amoris Laetitia indeed. More of the “Francis effect.” God help us. The Church is in the hands of pagans.

18. Now we see the true reason Pope Benedict stepped down. He was forced to so this Pope could put the nail in the coffin in regards to the Church. Satan is getting close to the end because we know that Mary said just as things look hopeless I will crush Satan’s head.

19. This is beyond belief. Amoris Laetitia was bad enough. Now the pope is teaching garbage to our kids! Can it be that the Catholic Church is now making itself an enemy of virtue?

20. This Vatican sex-ed program is right in sync with Amoris Adulteria, yes? Par for the course, yes?

21. May God have mercy on our Church! This will just further embolden those who, like our parish priest, embrace this garbage. Smoke of Satan indeed.

Editor’s Note: The Pontifical Council for the Family isasking for feedbackhttp://www.educazioneaffettiva.org/?lang=enabout its program. Please be respectful in communications. My feedback is towards the end of the present file

The PCF may be contacted using its online platform here (scroll to bottom of page) or by using the information below:

Three international life-and-family leaders who have defended Catholic teaching on marriage, sexuality, and life for decades have called the Vatican’s newly released sex-ed program for teens “thoroughly immoral,” “entirely inappropriate,” and “quite tragic.”

“I find it monstrous that an official arm of the Church would not only create a sexual education program for teens but one that bypasses parents as the primary educator of their children,” said Dr. Thomas Ward, Founder and President of the National Association of Catholic Families as well as a Corresponding Member of the Pontifical Academy for Life.

The program, titled “The Meeting Point: Course of Affective Sexual Education for Young People,” was released last week by the Pontifical Council for the Family to be presented this week to young people at World Youth Day in Poland.

While the program has been in the process of development by married couples in Spain for a number of years, itreceived impetusto be completed by Pope Francis’ April apostolic exhortation on marriage and the family, Amoris Laetitia. In the exhortation, the Pope speaks about the “need for sex education” to be addressed by “educational institutions,” a move that alarmed global life-and-family leaders since the Catholic Church has always recognized and taught — often in the face of opposition from world powers — that sex education is the “basic right and duty of parents.”

Ward called it “disingenuous” for anyone to think that the program will not be used as an excuse by various powers and authorities to “ignore and even dismiss the concerns of objecting parents who are trying to protect their children.”

“It could be the purest program in the world, but the fact that this is happening while pushing parents aside opens a Pandora’s box to sex education of all sorts. By pushing parents aside the creators of the program have effectively removed the safeguard that has been put in place by God to protect children from corrupting influences,” he told LifeSiteNews.

The curriculum has been primarily created to be used in a classroom setting by educators.

Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, the pontifical council’s president, stated in a presentation on the sex-ed program that the “uniqueness of the project” consists in that it “combines attention to teachers and to the young person or adolescent.”

Monsignor Carlos Simon Vazquez, the council’s undersecretary, went even further in his introduction to the program, calling its emphasis on aiding the “educator or the teacher” an “outstanding development.”

“In fact, an entire inner pedagogical articulation is impregnated by the teacher-pupil dialogue, presented as one of the assets of this project that can be implemented at different stages of the life of the young,” he wrote.

The monsignor pays lip service to the role of parents, stating that the course can also be used by families, making homes “enriched” by this project.

In the 518 pages of the program, parental involvement happens on one occasion, namely, when students are told to “ask your parents and grandparents to show you photographs of when they were children and young adults, and look at the changes together. It can be a really nice experience.”

Classroom teachers, however, are tasked with — more than 40 times — explaining, describing, discussing, supervising, moderating debate, and reviewing materials with the students.

At one point, the manual instructs teachersto elicit from students answers to questions that would be similar to the advice that parents would give their children when speaking about chastity. “Here is where we try to get [the students] to say the same things that their parents would say themselves: be careful in your relationship, value your body, avoid temptation and you will evade danger,” the program states.

At another place, the manual instructs teachersto bring into the classroom a “biology teacher” who can help the youths identify “primary and secondary sex characteristics, observing the difference between male and female.”

Ward called the program “thoroughly immoral,” adding that it amounted to a “complete rupture from the teaching of the Church throughout the ages about the parent as primary educator.”

“Parents are the primary educators of their children, especially when it comes to passing on sexual morals and values. They, and they alone, know when their child is ready for such information,” he said, adding that the “right information at the wrong time could cause catastrophic damage to a child.”

“I say that if this program has handed the sexual formation of young people over to the so-called experts and has not involved parents in any meaningful way, then it has usurped their duty and rights over their children. Once the parents are removed, who will protect the children?”

In 1937 Pope Pius XI wrote the encyclicalMit Brennender Sorgein which he denounced the National Socialist government in Germany. He urged Catholic parents, whose parental rights were being undermined by Nazi policy, to not give up their moral duty to instruct their children.

“Parents…have a primary right to the education of the children God has given them in the spirit of their Faith, and according to its prescriptions. Laws and measures which in school [situations] fail to respect this freedom of the parents go against natural law and are immoral,” the pope wrote.

The pope at that time warned parents of the consequences of relinquishing their God-given duty.

“Yet do not forget this: none can free you from the responsibility God has placed on you over your children. None of your oppressors, who pretend to relieve you of your duties can answer for you to the eternal Judge, when he will ask: ‘Where are those I confided to you?’ May every one of you be able to answer: ‘Of them whom thou hast given me, I have not lost any one’.”

Reflecting on the above passage, Dr. Ward commented that not even a Pontifical Council can relieve parents of their duty as primary educator of their children in sexual matters or answer for them on their behalf when parents face the “eternal Judge.”

“This is why this topic is so important,” he said. “While it is the case that we are talking about sexual education, it is even more the case that we are talking about the salvation of souls.”

John Smeaton, Chief Executive of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children and co-founder of Voice of the Family, told LifeSiteNews that the Vatican program threatens children.

“In the Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia Pope Francis included a section titled the ‘need for sex education.’ Pro-life and pro-family leaders warned at the time that the wording of the pope’s appeal, and his failure to uphold the rights of parents in this section, risked playing into the hands of powerful international agencies that were pushing damaging sex education programmes. Now, three months later, we see the pope’s own Pontifical Council for the Family releasing a programme filled with problems.”

Smeaton shared Ward’s concern that the program has violated the right of Catholic parents over the education of their children.

“By encouraging teachers and other educators to expose children to such a programme the Vatican is violating the rights of Catholic parents to be the primary educators of their children in sexual matters. It is entirely inappropriate for children to be exposed to explicit sexual imagery, such as that contained in this course, and to be encouraged to discuss sexual matters in a classroom environment.”

Smeaton said that parents should not underestimate the program’s threat to children.

“Parents must not be under any illusion: the pontificate of Pope Francis marks the surrender of the Vatican authorities to the worldwide sexual revolution and directly threatens their own children,” he said.

Christine Vollmer, a founding member of the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy for Life as well as the founder of the Latin American Alliance for Life, called it “problematic” that the program bypasses parents.

“It is quite tragic that the Pontifical Council for the Family should by-pass the parents when this has been the problem that has brought on the adolescent sex problems that we are suffering,” she told LifeSiteNews.

She noted that while the program has used some good philosophical bases it has also “fallen into the trap of thinking that using material of a rather crude and ‘sexy’ variety will awaken the interest of adolescents.”

“Sadly, these will have either the effect of arousal or of turning off the kids, and many parents will feel disappointed or even betrayed by this surprising error in the program,” she added.

Public sex education for youths has been decried by a number of renowned Catholic thinkers over the decades.

Famed Catholic thinker Dietrich von Hildebrand***, called by John Paul II “one of the great ethicists of the twentieth century” and by Pope Benedict XVI one of the “most prominent” figures in the intellectual history of the Church in the last century, held that any form of classroom sex education damaged children.

“The nature of sex, itself, must first be grasped if we are to estimate the damage done to the souls of children by the so-called sex education in the classroom — damage not only from the moral point of view, but also from the one of human integrity and spiritual health,” he wrote in an essay*published in 1969, eight years before his death. Protecting the “holy bashfulness” of young people while passing on the “moral significance” and “mysterious character” of sex can only be done by parents, he writes. *https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=7860

“To develop the right attitude and vision in the human person toward this sphere of sex, there exists only one possibility; namely, information about the mystery of sex must be disclosed in great reverence and in a strict duo-personal dialogue, of the father or the mother with their child. Absolutely excluded is the pseudo-scientific teaching about sex in a classroom — that is, in a neutralizing and publicity-saturated atmosphere,” he wrote.

Parents are “responsible for sex education in the true sense of education,” he wrote, adding that they “must protect the child from all neutralizing discussions of this field.”

The Catholic thinker ended his essay quoting the words of Jesus found in the Gospel of Matthew: “But he that shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in Me, it were better for him that a millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be drowned in the depth of the sea.”

14 of 44 responses

1. Another rancid production from a papacy that appears to delight in pushing Catholics away from virtue and into the arms of a decadent world.

2. “Monstrous” is the right word. Another way people in Vatican are attacking the Decalogue.

3. Let’s be frank – this isn’t the work of the One Holy Catholic & Apostolic Church it is the work of Marxist/Masonic/Modernism, i.e. Satan. Our Lady said that Rome would lose the faith & become the seat of the Antichrist which is evident for us all to see. She also said this Apostasy would start at the top & those who should speak won’t. It’s all happening right now before our eyes.

It is imperative that Amoris Laetitia be scrapped. If no adequate response is received by the signatories to the Appeal of Catholic Academics & Clerics to the Cardinals re AL, then further steps must be taken to call for a Council to examine the heresies in this document, particularly the intent to change Catholic Doctrine via altering the pastoral approach which cannot be condoned. With PF already implementing this ‘pastoral’ teaching to the serious concern of us all, time is of the essence. We all will face persecution of one kind of another under this Papacy, but priests in particular must now come out in favour of Christ’s laws, not Satan’s & we must support them not only by our prayers but by positively & unashamedly upholding the tenets of the CC going back to Christ Himself.

4. Francis’ every word is transmitted around the globe within minutes and is taken up by bishops and priest who wishes to radicalize the Faith. His custom-fit version of Catholicism bears very little resemblance the Faith that I hold.

5. Holy Father, what are you doing? The Church is supposed to be in the world, not of it. The approach of this programme seems to be indicative of what Pope Benedict called the ‘filth’ in the Church. Sensuous graphics do not inculcate chastity. Sex is for marriage. These are my children and grandchildren. I have to answer to God for them. How dare you denigrate my responsibilities? How dare you instruct them in the ways of the world? You over-step your authority.

6. What an opportunity missed! As a parent I groan that my Church has signed up to the coarse language/imagery of the secular programmes to which our children are subjected, even in Catholic schools. Where is the delicate truth and beauty that the marital embrace is a loving intimate act between two people who love each other?

7. I looked at all of the images, and read the texts linked by the original article.

This is from THE VATICAN?

I cannot imagine Our Lady and Saint Joseph sitting down and going over this material with Our Divine Lord even when he reached a suitable age for such discussions. There is no “suitable age” for reading such seriously immodest text and images, as these are. I don’t have young children, but I would welcome a Vatican publication that would assist PARENTS in discussing sex and sexuality with their children, of a character and a taste that it might have been acceptable to Our Lady and Saint Joseph, as something to share with their Divine Son . . . but . . . THIS WOULD NOT BE IT!

If it came into my house – STRAIGHT INTO THE TRASH!! Where it belongs.

8. Fr. Paul Marx, of blessed memory, founder of Human Life International (HLI) & Population Research Institute (PRI), called by Pope JPII the “Apostle of Life”, a good friend of both Von Hilldebrands, taught that there is no such thing as Catholic sex-ed. Address chastity in religion studies and leave all else to parents. Aid the parents with materials but let them choose when and what to share with their children. US bishops jumped on the Catholic sex-ed / “so-called” chastity education bandwagon and two generations later we see the destruction. ‘Mother’s Watch’, a Catholic lay initiative, for many years, fought the good fight against Catholic sex-ed and, if I remember correctly, they found not a single US diocese without sex-ed in Catholic schools. I am as scandalized as many of you are with Pope F. but he jumped on the caboose of the sex-ed train driven by the US bishops. There is plenty of blame to share!

9. Coming from an organization that has been riddled with pedophilia lawsuits and has cost the faithful, yes that’s right, the faithful, millions of dollars to encouraging gays in the priesthood and corrupting the sacrament of marriage, I would not any longer respect the poor judgement of this papacy! As I said before, unless this pope repents and changes his course, I firmly believe he will be known as a heretic. He is a disgrace to the Catholic faith! He said he looked for his time in the chair of Peter to be short. I sincerely pray that it is! Vocations to the priesthood did not flourish where he came from and he has allowed abominable things to take place then and now.

He received the chief baby butcher at the Vatican as if he was a king. This man needs a lot of prayers alright and pray for him I do, and holy mother church! Remembering the words of the Blessed Mother: “In the end, the Immaculate Heart will triumph”!

11. Thanks for sharing my son definitely will not be going to next World Youth Day especially if this is the kind of stuff they want to teach our children. NOT gonna happen with mine.

12. We could see this coming as a result of Pope Francis’ Instrumentum Laboris*.

13. I wonder if the Pope’s friend (a Bishop, I believe) who wrote a book titled ‘The Art of Kissing’* is behind this nonsense.

14. This little pamphlet of Sex-Ed propaganda released by the Vatican and disseminated at World Youth Day should be a huge red flag to those who still entertain wishful thinking regarding the state of things in the Roman Catholic Church. There’s only one word to describe what has befallen the Church, right up to and including the seat of Peter. That word is Apostasy. *See list at the end of the present file

World Youth Day 2016 sex ed sex abuse

After reading about thehard core XXX porn video recommendationsbeing made to 16-18 year olds at World Youth Day 2016 as put together by the Pontifical Council for the Family’s sexually abusive sex-education program being promoted among these youngsters I feel like vomiting and that I’m about to have a heart attack.

I could say some pretty rough things and use some pretty rough language to assist the intent of my comments, but that doesn’t do me any good, nor would it do you any good.

But I will say this: If any priest were to promote those recommendations of the Pontifical Council for the Family to 16-18 year olds, such a priest would forthwith be dismissed from the clerical state (laicized) by Pope Francis and then sued for sex-abuse and thrown in prison for the rest of his life in these USA.

But if any priest were to argue against such an abusive program and not comply with some sex-crazed (Arch)bishop’s sex-abusive sex-ed program based on this rubbish at “The Pope’s World Youth Day”, he would soon find himself without any assignment, without any means to live. After a few years he would be laicized just to get him out of the way.

Here’s the deal: I would rather be a priest forever in heaven even though having suffered on this earth, than to go to hell as a priest where I would be tormented worse than anyone else forever.

Perhaps those who ram this diabolical scandal in the faces of youngsters should be reminded that Jesus, BECAUSE of his mercy will come to judge the living and the dead and the world by the fire of His love, which will burn ardently in those who are with Him, but which will be a source of the most intense and burning frustration for those who did not welcome children with the respect which is their due.

Meanwhile, I am going to continue being the priest I am happy to be. I will keep up with the Sacraments. I will pray. I will follow the love and goodness and kindness and mercy and truth and justice of Jesus. I will fend off all attempts to destroy souls in my parish. I will pray for the Roman Pontiff and those in the Roman Curia. But I am God’s servant first.

–Father George David Byers – Missionary of Mercy of Pope Francis

P.S. Dear Pope Francis, if a mutual friend shows you this post, why not consent to the interview I would I like to have with you? I have some questions for you.

3 of 6 responses

1. You can kind of see why the Synod(s) on the Family were so confusing. What can we Lay People do, other than pray Jesus comes with his cords and whips?

2. I beg all priests through this media to read: “Dignity and Duties of The Priest or Selva” by St. Alphonsus De Liguori.-‘be thou to the people in the things that pertain to God’, pg. 47-‘the priest who does not give good example will bring contempt on his preaching and all his spiritual functions’, pg. 238-all spoken by priests that does not edify is dangerous to them and in fact criminal’, pg. 241

3. This horrid and diabolical program is in complete contrast to the 1995 Pontifical Council for the Family document the Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality* which says parents must reclaim their role and responsibility in chastity/sex education and the Church must help them. Schools are NOT to take over the parents’ role as they have been doing. Please read and spread this document. It also says that any child or young person HAS THE RIGHT TO BE EDUCATED IN THESE MATTERS WHILE REMAINING CHASTE. THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO THEIR CHASTITY AND MAY LEAVE THE CLASSROOM IF THEY FEEL THEY ARE BEING VIOLATED IN THIS. And if they leave I suggest they file a lawsuit against the teacher, priest or school that foists this pornographic material on them. Father you are totally correct in your response and feelings above. I and many other parents and grandparents stand with you. *See list at the end of the present file

The Meeting Point: Course of Affective Sexual Education for Young People

“It is not easy to approach the issue of sex education in an age when sexuality tends to be trivialized and impoverished. It can only be seen within the broader framework of an education for love, for mutual self-giving.” Pope Francis, Amoris Laetitia no. 280.

There is therefore no confusion over whether this Vatican initiative flows from the highly problematic Amoris Laetitia.

Contact us

Contact the project organizers, ask for directions or help, suggest ideas, express any doubts or concerns, or propose new materials by filling in as required:

My feedback emailed to the Pontifical Council for the Family

This sex-ed programme is simply diabolical.

It would be destructive to the Catholic morality and eternal salvation of my five grandchildren.

The Document of WYD Krakow 2016 flows from the errors of Amoris Laetitia.

It is unbelievable that it was designed for Catholic youth by the Vatican’s Pontifical Council of the Family.

I am a Catholic apologist living in Chennai, India.

Our Catholic web site ephesians-511.net is probably the largest in Asia.

There are already around 50 detailed reports on it concerning our Pope’s many errors.

Our family prays for the Holy Father daily.

But we believe that it is high time that Pope Francis steps aside and makes place for a faithful conservative Cardinal like Robert Sarah, Francis Arinze, Malcolm Ranjith, Raymond Burke or Bishop Athanasius Schneider.

The entire liberal lobby in the Vatican and the universal Church must be stripped of their authority for assisting Pope Francis in the systematic destruction of the Church over the past three years.

In this excellent essay, originally published in 1969, Dr. von Hildebrand examines the damage done to the souls of children by sex education in the classroom. He discusses the natural bashfulness that surrounds the mystery of sex and the distortion of treating sex as a merely biological instinct.

Pages 5 to 14 of the larger work: Sex Education: The Basic Issues and Related Essays.